Olly Glover
MP for Didcot and Wantage · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford.”
“As highlighted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. That seems like a retrograde step.”
“I am certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing a debate on this important topic very much in the spirit of end-of-term relaxation. I want to start with some of the positives of the new draft NPPF.”
“More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions for houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues and, unlike larger HMOs, they may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poorer living conditions.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Olly Glover, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to his constituent and their family. I am going to be talking quite a lot about what we can do to prevent such occurrences in the future.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that awareness raising and increasing understanding are key priorities in dealing with SUDEP and epilepsy in general. Patients with epilepsy carry a risk of premature death that is, on average, two to three times higher than in the general population, as has been outlined by Frontiers in Epidemiology . What is most devastating is the knowledge that 60% of epilepsy-related deaths each year are believed to be preventable, according to the European Journal of Neurology , w ith SUDEP accounting for many of these deaths.”
“Free safety tools exist to tackle the lack of knowledge and the complacency around seizures and SUDEP, but systemic issues are difficult to shift because of poor access, poor medicine management, failure to communicate risk and poor recording of deaths. An independent review was named after Clive Treacey. Clive died at 47 in 2017 in a hospital setting where he had lived for 10 years. The report on his life is shocking for this country in the 21st century. The Minister might be aware of the debate secured last year by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I am pleased to see in his place tonight, and of the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who supported the Clive Treacey checklist.”
“The key challenge that SUDEP Action faces is that research insight does not reliably or quickly reach neurology consultations, primary care or social care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines exist, but services are inadequately supported to implement them. Jane Hanna from SUDEP Action told me that my own constituents face nine-month waits for a first seizure clinic and waits of nine to 12 months for follow-ups. She told me that waits of this magnitude, such as we are experiencing in my constituency, are unsafe. Her partner Alan waited for four months and died suddenly five months later. Waits such as these are not confined to my constituency; they are reflective of a structural problem across the country.”
“I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I thank her for her tireless campaigning and offer my condolences for her loss. My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage is the home to SUDEP Action, a charity that is local, national and international in its impact. In 1995, five bereaved women came together around a kitchen table to found the charity in tribute to Alan, aged 27; Matthew, 21; Natalie, 22; and William, 22—all of whom had died, with the condition unrecognised beforehand. Jane Hanna, Sheila Pring, Catherine Brookes, Sue Kelk and Jennifer Preston faced despair together and chose to build hope. Since 2020, SUDEP Action has worked alongside the Epilepsy Research Institute to identify tackling epilepsy deaths as a No. 1 research priority.”
“The series of prevention of future deaths reports into epilepsy reflects broader patterns: missed opportunities; a SUDEP and epilepsy risk communication gap; a failure to act; and a culture that too often fails to listen to families.”
“That speaks to an unacceptable systemic failure. More than 20 years after national guidance was introduced, young people and their families are still being left in the dark. So what needs to be done? SUDEP Action has developed practical safety tools to empower neighbourhoods: the SUDEP and seizure safety checklist; the EpSMon app, which helps people understand their personal epilepsy risks; and the Charlie card to support risk reduction and communication across care settings. We know that where the adult checklist is used, the rate of SUDEP conversations has risen from 20% to 80% and risks have fallen. But the challenges are vast. Progress is fragmented, it is far too slow, and at a time of rising inequalities all too often the risks are getting worse.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his tribute to his constituent, and I look forward to working with him and others on this issue. The checklist, commissioned by NHS Midlands and developed by SUDEP Action, is designed for commissioners and providers of care. There is hope that it will be red-flagged in annual health checks for people with learning disabilities, as the hon. Gentleman has said. Despite the existence of this high-risk cohort, most families were, like Clive’s, unaware of SUDEP and epilepsy risk despite learnings from earlier deaths. They were never given the information they needed, and the mistakes of the past continue to be repeated. Recent research by the European Journal of Neurology surveying neurologists found that only one fifth discussed SUDEP with all patients.”
“Thirdly, will the Minister support a national oversight mechanism in the Hillsborough Bill? Families have been campaigning for an amendment to the Hillsborough law so that there can be a single, permanent oversight body to prevent the same mistakes that have happened across different tragedies, such as Grenfell, the Post Office, Horizon and infected blood. It would track progress across Departments and public authorities, publicly report on failures, delays or resistance to reform, and prevent the repeated cycles of injustice that are seen after major disasters and scandals. Finally, will the Minister accept an invitation to visit my constituency to see the work of SUDEP Action, a charity built by families and clinical champions from grief, sustained by courage and determined to stop deaths?”
“Epilepsy and SUDEP must be included in neighbourhood healthcare, integrated with acute hospitals, social care and community health settings, as well as in prisons as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, to maximise the opportunity for prevention. There must be safe levels of epilepsy specialist doctors and nurses in local areas. Improving the quality of the annual check for learning disabilities by including a SUDEP check for people with epilepsy would be a significant step forward in upskilling primary care. Secondly, will the Minister commit today to arranging a meeting with SUDEP Action? Ministerial colleagues have offered engagement on prevention of future deaths reports with SUDEP Action, promising meetings in letters sent in January and February, but such meetings have yet to take place.”
“My thoughts are with all in the bereaved community, whom I stand by and will continue to campaign for. In order to effectively support the wonderful charities that are doing so much to prevent SUDEP and support families through this, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will the Minister commit to developing a modern framework for SUDEP? This would require policymakers working on epilepsy to work with those with lived experience via SUDEP Action and to spread good practice. In addition to mandatory information on side effects from anti-seizure medicines, there must be a framework for person-centred information about SUDEP and seizure risk, as well as national training initiatives that support whole-system learning.”
“SUDEP Action provides intensive assistance on 60 to 70 investigations of deaths each year and sees the toll of long, drawn-out processes and, far too often, a defensive culture by default. It also sees a painful accountability gap where inquests are not even held and families feel silenced. The complacency around SUDEP, seizures and epilepsy, which was first called out by Liam Donaldson as chief medical officer in his annual report in 2021, carries wider harms for communities and persists in too many places. Moving towards my conclusion, I wish to outline some key asks for the Minister. There are hundreds more stories from families that I wish I could have shared today, but I always endeavour to be as brief and concise as possible in this setting.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is absolutely right to raise prison as another setting where people are often vulnerable and where more needs to be done in relation to SUDEP. Sepsis, which has a similar history of systemic failure, will shortly benefit from a modern service framework co-produced with the UK Sepsis Trust. Meanwhile, neither epilepsy nor neurology is explicitly mentioned in the NHS 10-year plan. There is a mandatory national framework to protect unborn children from anti-seizure medication risks, but there is no mandatory national framework to protect people living with epilepsy from SUDEP and epilepsy deaths, despite 30 years of evidence and repeated calls for action.”
“TfL is showing some leadership on the former, with proposals for the west London orbital between Hounslow and Hendon, although that does not specifically help with the cross-river issue. My earlier brief and amateurish study of maps shows that the density of river crossings in London is markedly different from that in Paris, with Paris having almost double the number of river crossings on a 20 km section to the west of the city comparable to London. If the Labour Government can find £10 billion for the lower Thames crossing—admittedly with some private financing, but they have already committed at least £3 billion to that—they should surely be able to find the price tag needed to do the right thing for communities in south-west London by fixing Hammersmith bridge.”
“We all hope that the Minister will commit to resolving the issue and give us hope that this Government will end the embarrassing inertia and decision-making paralysis. A minimum key ask is that we increase the usefulness of the bridge by restoring it to enable cross-river bus services and emergency service vehicle access. Even if the bridge were to reopen to motor traffic, we need to go much further and think more boldly about the chronic congestion in London suburbs. One option is a massive road-building programme, such as that attempted in the ’60s and ’70s as part of the London ringways programme, which was dropped because it was deeply unpopular. The only alternative is to transform public transport, walking and cycling.”
“As has been said, the Hammersmith bridge issue speaks to a structural problem for London infrastructure, in that the relationship between Transport for London and councils is not always best placed to ensure that planning and decision making on significant infrastructure happens on an effective cross-borough or cross-city basis. Not unusually, the previous Conservative Government failed to get a grip of this mess. In the lead-up to the 2019 general election, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, stated that the Conservative Government would “not allow this” bridge “to remain closed”. The Conservatives then sat on the business case for repairing the bridge for years. If the Conservatives had kept their promise, the repairs could have been completed by now for £100 million less than the current estimated price tag.”
“I declare an interest as a former Wandsworth resident, and my recent visit showed how little had changed for public transport and active travel since I lived in that area. In addition to the closure of the bridge, that is why there is significant car traffic and a lot of congestion, including in areas well away from the two bridges that we have discussed. South-west London is being let down by the failure to get a grip of this issue, and that points to the struggle to be competent about infrastructure in many areas of the UK. The costs to rectify Hammersmith bridge are small compared with those, for example, of the proposed lower Thames crossing, which this Labour Government have not hesitated to back.”
“Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and councillors in west London have consistently held the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue and will continue to do so. As well as the long campaign on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in relation to its impact on Richmond borough, the hon. Member for Putney is correct to highlight the impact of the closure of Hammersmith bridge on Putney, where long traffic jams on Lower Richmond Road, Putney Bridge Road and Putney High Street, combined with a sub-optimally designed junction at Putney bridge, hit residents on a daily basis. Last weekend, while visiting the area, I learned of local Liberal Democrats campaigning hard for Wandsworth council to play a greater role, alongside the two most directly affected boroughs, to improve the current situation.”
“As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) articulately said, the ongoing cost to Hammersmith and Fulham council, with nearly £50 million already spent just to maintain the bridge, shows that the bill will continue to mount, absent a permanent solution. In our country, the failure to take long-term decisions to reach a conclusion often means that we spend a comparable amount of money maintaining an inadequate status quo in the meantime. London is one of the most congested cities in Europe, and the bridges crossing the Thames are the central arteries for traffic of all kinds through the city. It should be unthinkable that a bridge is sitting underused with no clear action being taken.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on consecutive days, Sir Alec. I commend the proposer, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for articulately outlining the long-running saga of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and a saga it is: the closure of this bridge has outlasted a pandemic and accompanied our departure from the European Union. Hopefully, the Government will take action so that not many other national or global events are added to the list of things that this bridge has witnessed. It was agreed under the previous Conservative Government that the £250 million cost of fixing the bridge would be split evenly between the Department for Transport, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The current Labour Government have yet to find a way to honour that agreement or find another solution.”
“The reviews show so many similar themes: failure to listen to women, lack of time for training and strengthening teamwork between staff, inadequate staffing and high levels of burnout, lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk, unsuitable estates and failure to learn when things go wrong. After so many reviews, it is clear that we need improved standards of care nationally. The recommendation for a maternity commissioner is widely supported across the parties. My constituents want to see a clear timeline for the appointment of a commissioner, if that is something the Government decide to support, so that learning and change happen this time.”
“Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours. Too many families have been affected by birth trauma, and reform is desperately needed. Since 2015, there have been many national reviews into the safety of maternity services, as well as high-profile investigations into care at individual maternity trusts, with calls for a national inquiry into maternity care. That is why I welcome Baroness Amos’s review, which will be valuable as a centralising piece of work, but it is the latest in a string of national and local reviews or inquiries, which together have produced over 700 recommendations. I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to why this latest review will be different.”
“Our package has much in common with what the petitioners are calling for, and we hope that they will be encouraged that many of us in Westminster are listening. A national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, and a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity service alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives to drive clinical excellence. It would also see specialist doctors present on every maternity unit 24/7 and provide one-to-one midwifery care to every woman during labour. That would ensure that it is no more dangerous to give birth at night or at the weekend than at any other time. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours.”
“The rate of women dying during or soon after pregnancy in the UK has increased by 20% over the past decade, a trend that I am sure we are all concerned about. A 2024 Care Quality Commission report based on an inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for women to give birth in. It also found that 47% of trusts require improvement in safety and a further 18% were rated inadequate. It stated that “we are concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity.” I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have launched a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby, with high-quality care wherever we live.”
“This year, they launched this petition to appoint a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies. A 2024 inquiry, led by the birth trauma all-party parliamentary group and by Theo Clarke, recommended that a maternity commissioner be appointed alongside a national maternity strategy to ensure mums and babies are safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion. A maternity commissioner would oversee and introduce past recommendations. Advocates have emphasised that a maternity commissioner is necessary to restore public confidence in NHS maternity services and ensure accountability. On average, a woman gives birth every 56 seconds in the UK, yet one in three women describe their childbirth experience as traumatic. Sadly, post-traumatic stress disorder affects one in 20 mothers after giving birth.”
“She felt that she was “fearmongered” when she was informed that if things turned, she would need to go for an emergency C-section under general anaesthetic with a tube down her throat: “I was being prodded and poked for blood samples, a catheter fitted, induced vaginally, given a blood transfusion, asked to sign away and deliver my passed baby boy, thankfully naturally.” Aggravatingly, a few days after the birth of her stillborn child, there was mention of HELLP syndrome when she was in the bereavement ward. She has been left with feelings of self-blame, which no grieving mother should ever have to go through. As we have heard, the petition is part of a wider campaign led by the former Conservative MP for Stafford East, Theo Clarke, and by reality TV star Louise Thompson. I join my constituents in thanking them for their work.”
“She has raised concerns around issues of consent, as well as long waiting times after requesting her notes from the hospital. A constituent who wishes to remain anonymous had birth complications during the delivery of her son in 2019 that left him with extremely severe lifelong disabilities. He requires round-the-clock care and cannot meet any of his own needs. Engagement from the Oxford university hospitals trust has been lacking to date. Finally, Natasha and her partner tragically lost their first-born son, Arlo Huxley Harewood. After experiencing a tremendously difficult pregnancy, she was left alone in a room with the news of her loss.”
“Anna has met the noble Baroness Amos more than once and is actively engaged in the Amos review, for which all my constituents have expressed their gratitude. They have high expectations of the review. Anna’s daughter, the mother of Wyllow-Raine, wants to see real accountability being taken for mistakes. She believes that a blood sugar test should have been done on her baby, as per NICE guidelines, and if it had been, Wyllow-Raine would still be here. They question the value of guidelines if hospitals are not following them. Anna would like to see a national inquiry into the Oxford university hospitals trust and the John Radcliffe hospital specifically. My constituent Joanna was left to give birth without a midwife or pain relief, so the safe arrival of her children was essentially down to luck rather than to proper maternity care.”
“Despite the plethora of maternity guidelines provided by bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the website perinatal.org.uk, Julie was surprised that there were no more specific and binding rules that hospitals had to follow. Julie wants to see a maternity system in place, designed to prevent avoidable death and injury. She also wants coroners’ offices to be used for the post mortems of babies. Harper’s post mortem was carried out by the John Radcliffe hospital’s own pathology laboratory, which creates concerns about a lack of independence and the potential for unconscious bias. My constituent Anna lost her granddaughter Wyllow-Raine.”
“I will tell some of those constituents’ stories; I am grateful for their consent that I do so. I met Julie Ray at a constituency surgery some months ago. Her granddaughter Harper Rose was stillborn at the John Radcliffe hospital in May 2023. Julie believes that her death could have been avoided. The mother had a high body mass index. Although it was highlighted early on in her pregnancy, the midwife-led care she received did not always appreciate the potential for serious complications at birth. She was supposed to receive consultant-led care, but that did not happen and important decisions were left to midwives.”
“Otherwise, births happen in the maternity unit at Oxford’s John Radcliffe hospital. I visited the department in September 2025 and was given a comprehensive tour, including the new bereavement ward. I thank all the staff I met, who were committed to improving the care there. The department-level leadership was receptive to feedback and acknowledged that care at the John Radcliffe hospital has at times gone wrong. That is important, given the many constituents who have contacted me about their experiences at the John Radcliffe hospital. I have met a number of constituents who have been affected by the traumatic and deeply tragic circumstances of stillbirth, complicated births that have resulted in lifelong and serious disabilities for children, post-traumatic stress disorder for mothers or a lack of support.”
“I have never seen people cry so much or so intensely as at the funeral of my friend Steve and Yue’s daughter. They, along with my friend Joel, who also lost a baby, have been superbly supported by Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal charity. They have all now experience successful births. I want to emphasise what this debate should be about. It is definitely not about criticising hard-working and dedicated individual midwives and health workers, who so often do an amazing job in very challenging circumstances. It is about improving the top-level leadership, culture, staffing levels and processes that affect maternity units. In my constituency, we have local maternity units in community hospitals in Wantage and Wallingford. These are welcomed by many constituents who would otherwise have to make what is often a long journey to Oxford.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important and sensitive debate with his customary eloquence. I thank the 464 of my constituents who signed the e-petition, placing my constituency in the top 25 nationally for signatories. I also want to thank the many constituents who have been in touch with me and my team—many of whom I have met at constituency surgeries—about their maternity experiences. This debate is important because of the familial and societal importance of safe, reassuring and comfortable pregnancy and childbirth, and all the anxiety and exhilaration that comes with that. I know that not from my own experience, but from that of friends and constituents.”
“The process by which that was done has not been clear and, as others have said, it is essential that this Government seize the opportunity to do the right thing and come clean on exactly how that contract was awarded to a company mired in controversy and with no previous healthcare specialist expertise.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the determined and forensic work on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The key reason I am attending and speaking today is because we love our national health service. For all its challenges and flaws, it is a key part of British society and identity, and we all want it to succeed. There is no question that improved stewardship and use of data are important, but they have to be done with public consent and trust. Palantir’s involvement in some of the critical change processes in the NHS places that at risk. My first concern is the process and governance around appointing Palantir to its UK contracts.”
“For example, Kahootz based in my constituency provides a lot of software to Government agencies. The House has been clear in this debate about the concerns, and we all await the Minister’s response as to what will happen next.”
“Dozens of constituents have contacted me about Palantir’s work, business practices and leadership, which raise ethical and civil liberty concerns that are not compatible with UK values around privacy, democratic accountability and the responsible use of public data. Indeed, a YouGov poll in partnership with Foxglove, a tech justice campaign group, before the contract was awarded found that almost half of adults would opt out of sharing health data with the NHS if Palantir was granted the FDP contract, and under half of NHS trusts have started using the technology due to patient and doctor opposition. There is a strong case for sovereignty over the UK’s data given that many allies in Europe also do not feel comfortable using American companies like Palantir. There are many suitable UK companies or those from trusted and reliable allies.”
“I very much agree with my hon. Friend that accountability to this House is always a critical consideration. The second concern is Palantir’s track record and motivations. I shall not repeat too much of what others have said, but its close ties with the US Government and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its background in security and surveillance more widely, are a key concern, as well as its role supporting the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza war. My biggest concern and that of the dozens of my constituents who have written in are the geopolitical sovereignty and data protection implications.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Ms Lewell. I welcome the Minister’s comments, and it is good that he is aware of some of the concerns about the proposed changes to article 71 and some of the findings from the consultation, but can he go a little further? What he says about the CAA not using these provisions too casually is important, but what will be done—to answer the age-old question of who watches the watchers—to ensure that the CAA is using the powers in the regulations sensibly rather than disproportionately? I agree with the shadow Minister’s comments. The Liberal Democrats are broadly inclined to support the regulations, but we would like to hear a little more from the Minister about what assurances can be given that these new powers will not be abused.”
“Road Emulsion Association research has found that 57% of UK drivers experience fewer and less severe potholes on Europe’s motorways compared with ours. That was confirmed by Office of Rail and Road benchmarking, which identified that the Netherlands’ strategic road network had double the high standard of ride quality than UK roads. Does the Minister agree that we should embrace good road practices from other countries, and what steps is he taking to ensure that our money is well spent?”
“An October 2024 Active Travel England analysis of case studies found that walking and cycling schemes typically generate a benefit-cost ratio of between 3.5:1 and 19:1. Given the plans for significant devolution of transport funding, how will the Government ensure that local authorities deliver consistent standards and improvements to streets and routes to enable walking and cycling, and the huge accompanying economic and health benefits?”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Ladygrove in the constituency of Didcot and Wantage, Declares that Thames Water must take all possible measures to mitigate against repeat sewage flood occurrences from manhole 2201. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003180]”
“I wish to present a petition, signed by 65 residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Didcot, relating to years of flooding on their street, and the perennial risk of flooding to their properties. I hope that Thames Water and the Government will take note. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Common urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201.”
“I have many of those in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage—for example, Adaptimmune, AMS Biotechnology and Bounce Biomedical on Milton Park, and Accentus Medical and the internationally respected diamond light source facility, used by academia and industry to conduct research in life and physical sciences, on the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus. It would be interesting to hear a little from the Minister about how the investment set out in the motion will benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the very large companies it is clearly most focused on.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for moving the motion, which the Liberal Democrats are also minded to support. It is vital that the UK life sciences sector, which is such an important part of our economy, is supported and has the potential to thrive and compete on the global stage. That is not just for economic reasons, but so that the UK can respond, and contribute to responses, to future health emergencies and pandemics, given its focus on research and development and its manufacturing capacity in medicines, medical technology and diagnostics. The only concern we might have is based on the Competition and Markets Authority assessment of this proposal, which identifies potential downsides for small and medium-sized enterprises.”
“In that context, the Labour Government’s decision to cut Oxfordshire county council’s central Government funding by £24.1 million over three years is a grave concern. Clearly, money is a big part of the problem we face, but perhaps the Minister can share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair.”
“A 2022 survey by Cycling UK found that “21% of cyclists have been involved in an accident because of a pothole” and among those, 22% suffered a personal injury; 88% of riders reported having to take a dangerous manoeuvre to avoid a road defect, and 63% experienced bike damage due to poor road surfaces. The current road maintenance guidance focuses primarily on when defects damage motor vehicles—a criterion that fails to capture the far lower threshold at which cyclists can be catastrophically harmed. Perhaps adoption of that higher standard for repairs could also move us closer to a greater focus on prevention and preventive works. This issue relates to a wider crisis in local government finances, with the cost of social care and special educational needs provision accounting for an ever-growing proportion of local authority budgets.”
“That is an indictment of the previous Conservative Government’s utter neglect of Britain’s roads, with the total maintenance backlog now standing at more than £18 billion. The 2026 annual local authority road maintenance survey estimates that 16% of the local road network in England and Wales is “in poor condition”. It is costing road users dearly, with research suggesting that UK drivers are paying, on average, more than £300 a year to repair damage caused by potholes, and rural drivers highlight worse conditions than urban areas. It is not just drivers.”
“Many residents look to the current council for responsibility, but the reality is that this is a long-term issue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, it is the legacy of the previous Conservative Administration who, in Oxfordshire, implemented a “managed decline” policy in 2014. That was partly driven by national funding constraints. Today’s debate proves that this is a nationwide crisis and that we should treat it as such. Poorly lit, often narrow and fast rural roads are far more dangerous than urban ones. According to road safety charity Brake, road users are three times more likely to be killed on a rural road than an urban road.”
“We have heard two examples each from Shropshire and Sussex; examples from Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Kent; two each from Wiltshire, Yorkshire, Somerset; and examples from Nottinghamshire, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, the Scottish highlands, Cambridgeshire and Cumbria. That is an enormously diverse geographical list and shows the sheer scale of the problem that we are facing. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I have repeated examples of major problems with roads that really drive people mad, particularly the A417 through Mellors Garage, Challow station, Stanford, and Shellingford crossroads. There are also problems on the A417 through Upton and Blewbury, and on many roads in Didcot. They are just a few examples.”